Re: Re no death prior to the fall....

From: Joanna Woo <cokhavim@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 17:39:41 EDT

2 children per couple is only linear growth, not expontial. for exponential
growth, you need *4* children per couple (2 children per person), with an
equal amount of females as males. and we have to assume that *everybody*
marries and has kids early. however, recall that many of the patriarchs were
born when their fathers were several hundreds of years old - at least an
order of magnitude correction to the model, if the numbers are to be taken
at face value.

other thoughts: i think that God meant for us to learn how to space travel.
and if nobody dies, collective knowledge increases much faster because the
original brains can keep thinking without having to spend time learning the
basics, like the children do.

jo

On 8/2/05, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> You bet! Any other thoughts about how this can be worked around? JimA
>
> Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
>
>
> *Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> <jarmstro@qwest.net>* wrote:
>
> While the idea of no death before the fall is clearly somewhat widely
> accepted, I sure can't figure out why that idea would stick after a
> little thought.
>
> Suppose that death has not entered the world, that reproduction and
> population of the Earth has always been a part of God's master plan, and
> that children mercifully wait until the adults are 20 years old.
> Adam and Eve are generation 1.
> Adam and Eve beget Cain and Abel - Generation 2 - and the population has
> doubled.
> Cain and Abel take wives (wherever they came from) and produce children
> - generation 3 - and the population has at least doubled again (for this
> exercise, I just assumed 2 children per couple).
>
> Harkening back to an old math tale about such doubling, a peasant makes
> a deal for one grain of wheat for the first square of a checkerboard, 2
> grains for the second, 4 for the third square and so on, with the result
> that by the end of the checkboard he had "won" more than the world's
> production of wheat.
>
> Sure enough, it turns out that it takes just 32 generation-to-generation
> doublings (640 years) to reach our present world population if noone dies.
>
> If you just continue this doubling process for 14 more generations (940
> years total), we are running out of space for people on Earth with about
> one person for every square yard.
> If this continues for 6000 years, just 300 generations, there are more
> people than atoms in the universe (by some reckonings).
>
> What's wrong with this picture?
> The math is not wrong, and it's simple to check.
> Is the idea of reproducing and populating the world wrong? Probably not.
> Or maybe reproductive sex is also the result of the fall!?
>
> While thinking about this problem a number of years ago I concluded that
> maybe reproductive sex was the result of the fall. But Scripture throws cold
> water on that one: God said to Eve, "I will _greatly increase_ your pains in
> childbearing". Childbearing is assumed. Since God said, "In the day (there's
> that pesky word again) you eat of it, you will die." So following the
> literalist path we need to look for something that happened in the day Adam
> and Eve ate of the tree. In that day they were banished from the Garden,
> where they enjoyed close communion with God. Is the loss of close communion
> with God a kind of death? Seems reasonable.
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> ------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 16 17:42:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 17:42:14 EDT